Visuddhimagga XIV-45

Yasmā panetaṃ ubhayampi natthi,

可是这两种都不可能发生，

Ñ(XIV,45): 'But since neither of these is a fact,

tasmā pahāyetaṃ etesaṃ nissayabhūtānaṃ visesakappanaṃ,

所以你必须放弃（眼等的差别是）此等所依的大种的差别的说法。

Ñ: you should therefore give up conjecturing the difference to be in the supporting primary elements.

‘‘yathā avisesepi ekakalāpe bhūtānaṃ rūparasādayo aññamaññaṃ visadisā honti, evaṃ cakkhupasādādayo avijjamānepi aññasmiṃ visesakāraṇe’’ti gahetabbametaṃ.

例如于一色聚的大种虽无差别，但大种的色与味等则互相各别，如是差别，虽无别的原因，但说眼净等（相异）」。

Ñ: Just as the natures of visible objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference exists'. This is how it should be taken.

Kiṃ pana taṃ yaṃ aññamaññassa asādhāraṇaṃ?

然而那眼耳等怎么会互相的不同？

Ñ: But what is it that is not common to them all?

Kammameva nesaṃ visesakāraṇaṃ.

只有业是它们的差别的原因。

Ñ: It is the kamma itself that is the reason for their difference.

Tasmā kammavisesato etesaṃ viseso, na bhūtavisesato.

因为业的差别，所以有此等（眼、耳等）的差别，并非因大种的差别之故。

Ñ: Therefore their difference is due to difference of kamma, not to difference of primary elements;

Bhūtavisese hi sati pasādova na uppajjati. Samānānañhi pasādo, na visamānānanti porāṇā.

即如古人说：「如果大种有差别时，则无净（根）生起，因为净（根的大种）是相等而非相异」。

Ñ: for if there were difference of primary elements, sensitivity itself would not arise, since the Ancients have said: 'Sensitivity is of those that are equal, not of those that are unequal'.